SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (130783)1/25/2001 6:59:01 PM
From: Joe NYC  Respond to of 1571002
 
Ted,

The last 2 expansions lasted about the same time (83 - 91, 93 - 2000), so maybe this is the new length of the cycle.

Funny, how the expansion under the Republicans grew and the one under the Democrats shortened.

I was just doing ballpark figures. But now that you mention it, I am a little hazy about 83 and 91, or when exactly in 92 the economy turned around (but if you keep count by Rep vs. Dem, 92 would go to Reps).

Ok, I just looked up some numbers, and according to this table: jetro.go.jp
The real GDP growth in 91 was -1% and 92 was +2.7%, so subtract one year from Bush Sr. from first growth period and add one year to the second growth period.

Let's if I can find some numbers for 80s. According to this page: reagan.webteamone.com
the GDP started to grow in Q4 1982, so 83 is correct.

Joe



To: tejek who wrote (130783)1/26/2001 11:02:03 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1571002
 
Do the Republicans have a different definition for the terms recession and expansion than the popular ones, because up until today, I thought the expansion under Clinton had been the longest one since the end of WW II?

The expansion was the longest but it started under Bush not Clinton.

Tim